Caoile v. People

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 255516. July 7, 2021.]

LEONARD JOHN D. CAOILE, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 July 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 255516 (Leonard John D. Caoile v. People of the Philippines). — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated 28 August 2020 and Resolution 3 dated 22 January 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 41470.

The antecedents:

In 2017, a criminal information for lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act (RA) No. 7010 was filed against petitioner Leonard John D. Caoile (petitioner) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of _______________ City. The information accused petitioner of touching, and inserting into his mouth, the penis of AAA 4 — a lad who was then only twelve (12) years old. The information reads:

On or about 20 June 2017, in the City of __________________, Philippines, accused LEONARD JOHN DELOS REYES CAOILE, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit lascivious conduct with one [AAA], a twelve year old child subjected to sexual abuse, by touching the latter's penis and putting the same into his mouth with no other purpose but to satisfy his lascivious and sexual desire.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Petitioner was arraigned on 30 June 2017 and he entered a plea of "not guilty" to the offense charged. During pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on, among other matters, the fact that AAA is a minor born on 17 November 2014. Trial thereafter ensued. TAIaHE

The version of the prosecution — as relayed mainly by AAA and his mother BBB — is as follows:

1. On 20 June 2017, at around 2:00 in the afternoon, AAA and his parents went to the _____________ Talent and Artist Center in ___________ City where AAA intended to audition for a bath soap commercial. When they arrived, AAA and his parents were met by petitioner who told them to fill out certain forms. BBB complied.

2. While BBB was filling out the forms, petitioner invited AAA inside the studio. Inside the studio, petitioner instructed AAA to say the word "yes" in five different emotions and to sing. Thereafter, petitioner requested AAA to get another minus one song which the latter, in turn, could download using his BBB's phone. Thus, AAA went outside, got BBB's phone, and returned inside the studio.

3. As the song was downloading, petitioner asked AAA to remove his clothes so that his pictures may be taken for the commercial. AAA removed his pants and polo shirt but left his boxer shorts on. Petitioner, however, put his hands on AAA's waist and pulled down the latter's boxer shorts.

4. AAA pulled his boxer shorts up, but petitioner pulled it down again, this time, along with AAA's briefs. Petitioner instructed AAA to keep quiet. Petitioner then put AAA's penis inside his (petitioner's) mouth for about two to three minutes. Due to fear, AAA was not able to resist.

5. After he was done, petitioner took pictures of AAA. Petitioner then allowed AAA to put his clothes back on. After, petitioner exposed his penis to AAA and asked the latter "Gusto mo bang i-try?" AAA refused and exited the studio.

6. AAA relayed to his parents his harrowing experience with petitioner. Furious, AAA's parents confronted petitioner. Later in the day, AAA's parents went to the police station to file a complaint against petitioner. Policemen then proceeded to the ______________ Talent and Artist Center where they informed petitioner of the complaint filed against him. Petitioner went with the policemen to the police station voluntarily. There, petitioner was detained.

The defense, on the other hand, countered with its own version of facts anchored mainly on the testimony of petitioner. Petitioner denied having sexually abused AAA and recalled the events that happened inside the studio of the ___________ Talent and Artist Center on 20 June 2017 as follows:

1. At around 2:45 in the afternoon, AAA went inside the studio. Petitioner videoed AAA while the latter was discussing his personal circumstances.

2. Next, petitioner asked AAA whether he is ready to have his picture taken for the bath and soap file, and whether his parents were aware of it. When AAA responded in the affirmative, petitioner took photographs of AAA while the latter was only in his boxer shorts.

3. After having his pictures taken by petitioner, AAA left the studio to use the restroom and to drink. About ten (10) minutes later, AAA, now accompanied by his parents, went back inside. AAA's father then suddenly confronted petitioner and falsely accused the latter of sexually abusing AAA. cDHAES

On re-direct examination, petitioner hinted that the accusation leveled against him may have been motivated by the desire of AAA's parents to extort money from him.

The defense further manifested that it intended to present one Jovita Caoile (Jovita), the mother of petitioner, as an additional witness. However, the RTC denied the presentation of Jovita in open court on the ground that the latter was not included as a witness for the defense in the Pre-Trial Order.

The Rulings of the RTC and CA

On 15 January 2018, the RTC rendered judgment 5 finding the petitioner guilty as charged. In so finding, the RTC gave full weight and credence to the version of the prosecution while assigning little value to the story of denial weaved by the defense. Likewise, the trial court found as unsubstantiated petitioner's insinuation that the present charge was merely fabricated by AAA's parents out of their desire to extort money.

Verily, after taking petitioner's voluntary surrender into account as a mitigating circumstance, the RTC sentenced petitioner to suffer an indeterminate prison term of 8 years of prision mayor as minimum up to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The RTC also ordered petitioner to pay AAA the following: (1) P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, (2) P30,000.00 as moral damages and (3) interest on the foregoing at the rate of 6% per annum. The dispositive portion of the RTC judgment accordingly reads:

WHEREFORE, this Court finds [petitioner] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of lascivious conduct amounting to child abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610. His voluntary surrender is appreciated as a mitigating circumstance and without aggravating circumstance, the Court hereby sentences [petitioner] to a lesser penalty of imprisonment from 8 years of prision mayor as MINIMUM, to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as MAXIMUM.

[Petitioner] is likewise ordered to pay [AAA] P30,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as civil indemnity.

All damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.

Costs de officio.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner appealed to the CA.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA remained steadfast. Hence, this petition.

The Present Petition

In this appeal by certiorari, petitioner essentially raises two arguments.

First. Petitioner contends that it was erroneous to give full faith and credit to the version of the prosecution. He claims that neither AAA nor BBB may be considered as credible witnesses because certain claims in their testimony were shown to be false. In particular, petitioner points to the following anomalies in the testimonies of AAA and BBB: ASEcHI

1. AAA claimed in his testimony that he only finished Grade 5. However, as revealed by a screenshot of the Department of Education website, submitted as "exhibit 7" of the defense, it was established that AAA actually finished Grade 6.

2. AAA stated in his testimony that he thought the door of the studio was locked from the inside while he was being molested by petitioner. However, as shown by a picture of the door of the studio, submitted as "exhibit 12" of the defense, it was proven that the studio had no lock from the inside.

3. BBB testified that, according to the bystanders and tricycle drivers she met, there are a lot of complaints lodged against the petitioner. However, as rebuffed by a barangay certification, submitted as "exhibit 15 and 15-a" of the defense, it was proven that petitioner had no derogatory record.

4. BBB claimed that AAA refused to go out and became scared of the outside world because of the alleged sexual abuse. However, as revealed by screenshots of AAA's posts in his Facebook account three (3) days before he testified in court, submitted as "exhibit 18" of the defense, it was proven that AAA still goes on with his day-to-day routine as if nothing happened.

Second. Petitioner also faults the RTC in refusing the presentation of Jovila as a witness for the defense. Petitioner claims that Jovita could have established an alleged attempt by AAA's family to extort money from Jovita and petitioner.

OUR RULING

We deny the petition. However, the decision of the CA must be modified to conform with law and standing jurisprudence.

I

The petition has no merit. The arguments raised by petitioner were rehashes of the arguments he already raised in his appeal before the CA. We only conform with how the CA rebuffed such arguments.

Credibility of AAA and BBB

Petitioner's qualm regarding the credibility of AAA and BBB as witnesses was already addressed by the CA in this wise:

We likewise find no merit in [petitioner's] arguments to discredit [AAA] as a witness. Case law instructs that when the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, the findings of the trial courts necessarily carry great weight and respect as they are afforded the unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses during trial. Moreover, in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court. ITAaHc

In the case at bar, the trial court found [AAA's] narration of the events that transpired between him and accused-appellant to be clear, spontaneous, and straightforward. On the contrary, [petitioner] did not offer any evidence to prove his innocence except his bare denial. [Petitioner's] reliance on the various screenshots of [AAA's] Facebook account does little to discredit [AAA], as his entries thereon do not at all pertain to the incident of sexual abuse for which [petitioner] stands convicted of. Neither is the contention that it was not he who initiated contact with [AAA], nor that [AAA's] demeanor was relaxed during the confrontation, warrant any merit as the same do not relate to any of the essential elements of sexual abuse. (Citations omitted)

The CA is correct.

It is a well-settled rule that the assessment of a trial court as to matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great respect — if not finality — on appeal. 6 The rationale behind this rule is the recognition of the trial court's unique and distinctive position to be able to observe, first hand, the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witness whose credibility has been put in issue. 7

While conformity to the foregoing rule is not absolute, it must be underscored that any deviation therefrom is allowed only in light of the presence of highly meritorious circumstances, such as when it is clearly shown that the trial court had "acted arbitrarily" or when it is established that the trial court "overlooked certain facts of substance and of value which, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case." 8 None of these circumstances, however, are obtaining in the present case.

As aptly observed by the CA, none of the supposed anomalies in the testimonies of AAA and BBB pointed out by petitioner have any logical relation to any of the essential elements of the crime charged against the latter. All such anomalies merely pertain to incidental details that do not have any bearing as to whether petitioner sexually abused AAA or not, nor have any effect on the case's ultimate outcome. Since the narration of AAA regarding how he was molested by petitioner remains clear and uncontroverted, the RTC properly gave the same full weight and credence. Inevitably, the CA was only right to sustain the RTC.

Denial of the Presentation of Jovita as a Witness

Anent petitioner's qualm concerning the RTC's refusal to have Jovita appear as a witness, on the other hand, the CA had this to say:

Pre-Trial procedures in criminal cases are ordained under Rule 118 of the Rules of Court. Pre-Trial, by definition, is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues raised by the parties and to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. In light of the objectives of a pre-trial and the role of the trial court therein, it is evident that judges have the discretion to exclude witnesses and other pieces of evidence not listed in the pre-trial brief and set forth in the pre-trial order.

It is undisputed that [petitioner] participated during the pre-trial proceedings of Criminal Case No. R-MKT-17-02003-CR, as evinced by his signature on the Pre-Trial Order. Despite [petitioner's] active participation during the pre-trial proceedings, he never endeavored to include Jovita as one of his witnesses to prove the alleged extortion. Moreover, it appears that his previous lawyer, a certain Atty. Jose M. Vizcarra, likewise failed to exercise circumspection in selecting the defense witnesses, considering the alleged attempt of [AAA] and [BBB] to extort money from [petitioner] through Jovita. The general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client, even mistakes in the application of procedural rules. Moreover, the Pre-Trial Order bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not dispensed of and controls the course of action during the trial unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice. Verily, the RTC did not err when it excluded the presentation of Jovita, as she was not included in the Pre-Trial Order. (Citations omitted)

The CA further added:

Finally, [petitioner] harps on the supposed tenor of the testimonies of [Jovita], the witness he failed to present during trial, in that they could have proven x x x a statement made by [AAA] wherein the latter said "at kung makikipag areglo ako Me isang milyon ba kayo? The testimony of [Jovita] would have included the alleged extortion attempt. CHTAIc

The arguments are devoid of merit.

The procedural issue raised as a ground in the Motion for Reconsideration has already been judiciously discussed in Our Decision. As We have ruled, [the RTC] did not err when it precluded [petitioner] from presenting his mother, [Jovita], as she was not included as one of the witnesses for the defense in the Pre-Trial Order. Her presentation would not only violate the objectives of pre-trial to clarify and limit basic issues, but also bring the case within the realm of surprise of maneuvering, which is inimical to the interests of justice. [Petitioner's] participation during pre-trial is likewise undisputed, as he himself signed the Pre-Trial Order, thereby submitting that neither Jovita nor Aileen De Villa was never intended to be presented as a witness.

Again, the CA's ratiocinations are well taken.

The RTC's refusal to have Jovita take the witness stand is justified. It is undisputed that Jovita was neither included as a witness for the defense in the petitioner's pre-trial brief nor set forth as one in the Pre-Trial Order. Petitioner's active participation during the pre-trial, moreover, is unquestioned. Given such circumstances, and per jurisprudence, 9 the RTC has unquestionable discretion to exclude Jovita from appearing as a witness for the defense.

II

Be that as it may, certain modifications regarding the penalty and the damages payable by the petitioner must be made.

To recall, the RTC imposed the following penalties and damages against petitioner:

1. As penalty, petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 8 years of prision mayor as minimum up to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

2. As civil indemnity, petitioner was ordered to pay P20,000.00.

3. As moral damages, petitioner was ordered to pay P30,000.00.

4. The monetary awards were also subjected to interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

The CA affirmed the RTC impositions without any qualifications. This should be corrected.

Proper Penalty

The petitioner was charged and convicted of the crime lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 committed against a twelve-year-old boy. The penalty prescribed by law therefor is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.

Since the penalty prescribed by law is not a single indivisible penalty, Act No. 4103 or the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) applies. 10 Accordingly, the penalty that must be imposed against petitioner should be an indeterminate prison sentence comprised of a minimum term and a maximum term. 11 Moreover, as the crime involved uses the terminology of the penalties under Act No. 3185 or the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the rules native to offenses punished under the said code shall apply. 12 Thus:

1. The minimum term of petitioner's prison sentence must fall within the range of prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period — the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by law. 13Prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period has a range of 8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. EATCcI

2. The maximum term of petitioner's prison sentence must be derived from reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua — the penalty prescribed under RA 7610. 14 — but subject to the rules in Article 64 in relation to Article 65 of the RPC. 15 Hence, to determine the actual maximum term imposable against petitioner, the absence or presence of any modifying circumstances, whether mitigating or aggravating, has to be considered.

In this case, the RTC considered one mitigating circumstance — i.e., voluntary surrender — in favor of petitioner. We, however, do not agree.

In People v. Saul, 16 we enumerated the elements and essential characteristics of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance:

For voluntary surrender to mitigate the offense, the following elements must be present: (a) the offender has not actually been arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender must be voluntary. A surrender, to be voluntary, must be spontaneous, i.e., there must be an intent to submit oneself to authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses in capturing him. (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied). 17

The circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in favor of petitioner because he was already effectively placed under arrest by the policemen who responded to the complaint of AAA's parents. While petitioner did go peacefully with the said policemen to their station, the same cannot be considered as "spontaneous" or indicative of petitioner's desire to acknowledge his guilt or to spare the authorities the trouble and expenses of his capture. Petitioner, to start, was not the one who sought the presence of the policemen at the _____________ Talent and Artist Center. The policemen proceeded to the center as a response to a complaint against petitioner and, precisely, to effect the latter's arrest. Given these facts, it is clearly inferable that petitioner's compliant behavior had not been spontaneous as it was only impelled by the presence of the responding policemen and the looming inevitability of his arrest. 18

Accordingly, since there are no modifying circumstances that may be considered in favor of or against petitioner, the actual maximum term imposable against the latter can only come from the medium period of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua,i.e., from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years. 19

As can be seen, therefore, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence imposed by the RTC (i.e., 8 years of prision mayor) was below the range of prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period by one day. On the other hand, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence imposed by the RTC (i.e., 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal) was completely outside the range of the medium period of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. To fix this, we thus modify the indeterminate prison sentence of petitioner to: 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, up to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

In addition to a penalty of imprisonment, petitioner is also liable to pay a fine pursuant to Section 31 (f) of RA No. 7610. 20 Accordingly, we herein impose a fine in the amount of P15,000 against petitioner. 21

Proper Damages

The landmark case of People v. Tulagan22 had set the damages that may be imposed in cases involving the offense of lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, to wit: 23

Crime	Civil Indemnity	Moral Damages	Exemplary Damages*
Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC [Victim is of legal age]	P20,000.00	P20,000.00	P20,000.00
Acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 [Victim is a child under 12 years old or is demented]	P50,000.00	P50,000.00	P50,000.00
Sexual Abuse or Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 [Victim is a child 12 years old and below, or above 18 under special circumstances]	P75,000.00 (if penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua)	P75,000.00 (if penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua)	P75,000.00 (if penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua)
P50,000.00 (if penalty imposed is within the range of reclusion temporal medium)	P50,000.00 (if penalty imposed is within the range of reclusion temporal medium)	P50,000.00 (if penalty imposed is within the range of reclusion temporal medium)
Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC [Victim is of legal age]	P30,000.00	P30,000.00	P30,000.00
Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 [Victim is a child under 12 years old or is demented]	P50,000.00	P50,000.00	P50,000.00

Hence, to conform with standing jurisprudence, the award of damages payable by the petitioner to AAA must also be modified as follows: DHITCc

(1) the amount of civil indemnity is increased to P50,000,

(2) the amount of moral damages is increased to P50,000, and

(3) exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000 is imposed "to set as a public example to deter sexual abuse."

All such awards shall earn legal interest on the foregoing at the rate of 6% per annum from finality of this resolution up to full payment.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 28 August 2020 and Resolution dated 22 January 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41470 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accordingly, judgment is rendered as follows:

1. Petitioner Leonard John D. Caoile is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610. He is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as MINIMUM, to 20 years of reclusion temporal as MAXIMUM.

2. Petitioner is ORDERED to PAY a FINE in the amount of P15,000.00 pursuant to Section 31 (f) of Republic Act No. 7610.

3. Petitioner is ORDERED to PAY AAA the following:

a. civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00,

b. moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00,

c. exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00.

4. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated 7 April 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Rollo, pp. 19-34.

2.Id. at 62-81. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Perpetua Susana T. Atal-Paño, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Alfredo D. Ampuan.

3.Id. at 35-38. The resolution was penned by Associate Justice Perpetua Susana T. Atal-Paño, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Alfredo D. Ampuan.

4. Referred to as "victim" in the CA decision (id. at 62-81) and as "JAPJ" in the RTC decision (id. at 83-97). The victim's name and personal circumstances, as well as the names of the victim's immediate family or household members, are withheld and replaced with fictitious initials pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 83-2015. See People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006).

5.Rollo, pp. 83-97. The decision was penned by Presiding Judge Cristina F. Javalera-Sulit.

6. See People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 526 (2013).

7. See People v. Costelo, 375 Phil. 382, 385 (2009).

8.People v. Mali, 723 Phil. 838, 853 (2013) citing People v. De Jesus, 695 Phil. 115, 122 (2012).

9.Tiu v. Middleton, 369 Phil. 838 (1999).

10.See Sections 1, 2 and 5 of the ISL. See also Concurring Opinion of Justice Tinga in People v. Tubongbanua, 532 Phil. 434 (2006).

11. Section 1 of the ISL.

12.People v. Simon, 304 Phil. 725, 756 (1994).

13. Article 61 in relation to Article 71 of the RPC.

14. Section 1 of the ISL.

15. ARTICLE 64. Rules for the Application of Penalties Which Contain Three Periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:

1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.

2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period.

3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period.

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight.

5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.

6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.

7. Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.

ARTICLE 65. Rule in Cases in Which the Penally is Not Composed of Three Periods. — In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions the time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three portions.

16. 423 Phil. 927 (2001).

17.Id. at 936.

18.SeePeople v. Sabalberino, G.R. No. 241088, 3 June 2019.

19. Article 65 in relation to Article 64 of the RPC.

20. SECTION 31. Common Penal Provisions. —

xxx xxx xxx.

(f) A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.

21.People v. Basa, G.R. No. 237349, 27 February 2019.

22. G.R. No. 227363, 12 March 2019.

23. Emphasis supplied, citations omitted.

* If an aggravating circumstance is present or to set as a public example to deter sexual abuse. (People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, 12 March 2019)